Newsletter

Property taxes: A fairness question

NO ONE likes paying property taxes. But everyone does. Even renters. Landlords typically base part of their rents on their tax bills.

Yet paying them is like eating your vegetables. You may hate the taste. But you understand they’re supposed to be good for you, as they provide a stable and generally (but not always) equitable source of revenue, used to cover the cost of needed public services.

That’s what makes Mallie Seckinger’s case so compelling from a fairness viewpoint.

Mr. Seckinger, 57, and his family have owned waterfront property in the Montgomery neighborhood, where Whitefield Avenue dead ends at the Vernon River, for decades. It’s a lovely, quiet and almost one-of-a-kind piece of real estate, with a vista that’s worth a million bucks.

But try subdividing it and selling off a portion. Or installing a septic system within 50 feet of the salt marsh. He can’t.

The county’s Board of Health, per a 2006 decision, calculates that the resulting lot sizes would be too small to safely support septic tanks that won’t potentially pollute the public’s waterway.

Meanwhile, the state’s Coastal Marshlands Protection Act of 1970 established the state as the owner of the tidewater from the high to low water mark. In other words, the marsh. Previously, owners could treat this area like private property, adding fill dirt, rock and other spoil to gain access to deep water. Now, they must build a more expensive dock. And get a permit.

The 1970 act rightly protects one of the state’s most precious public assets. But where Mr. Seckinger may have a point is whether his waterfront property is less valuable because of the restrictions placed on it by the health board. Indeed, others seem to agree. County tax officials had valued his property for tax purposes at $1.1 million. A jury has since lowered it to $687,000. He also got the values of his neighbors’ properties lowered by 30 to 50 percent.

No one wants to live next to a marsh that’s treated like a toilet. That devalues everyone’s property. Hence, Superior Court Judge Louisa Abbot was right to rule in favor of septic tank setbacks and lot size requirements when Mr. Seckinger sued.

At the same time, however, any restrictions placed on private property tend to depress values. Ultimately, a property is worth what a willing buyer pays a willing seller. Location is a huge factor. But so are any strings on usage that may be attached.

An important fairness question is being raised here.

Mr. Seckinger argues that he’s a victim, and he’s entitled to his day in court. In the meantime, the county should prepare itself for a flood of similar challenges — and a drop in the tax digest that might occur.